Public Bill Committee

(Morning)

[Mr. Jim Hood in the Chair]
WR 04 Department for Work and Pensions

Clause 1

Schemes for assisting persons to obtain employment: work for your benefit schemes etc.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after circumstances, insert
other than when a claimant is responsible for a child of school age.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 65, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, after circumstances, insert
, and where claimants have guaranteed and predictable access to good quality, affordable and flexible childcare which meets the needs of the parents and the child or children in the claimants household,.
Amendment 62, in clause 3, page 10, line 17, at end insert
(8) The prescribed description of person under subsection (4)(c) above shall include any person with dependent children who has claimed benefit in the previous 12 months following an incident of domestic violence provided that the claimant is able to produce such evidence as may be required by the Secretary of State to establish that the relationship was caused to permanently break down before the end of that period as a result of domestic violence, as under United Kingdom Immigration Rule 289A..

Paul Rowen: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I shall particularly address amendments 40 and 65. The Government have signalled their intention to introduce work for your benefit schemes, although I prefer to call the schemes Workfare, because I think that that better describes the Governments intention. Liberal Democrat Members have considerable concerns about some of the proposed changes, and amendment 40 addresses parents with school-age children.
I make it clear that I have no problem with parents, or single parents in particular, working. My mother brought me and my two sisters up as a single parent, and I have no doubt that there are many other people in the same position. However, we are talking about working for benefit, and a change in Government policy to cover children of school age.
Under the proposals, from October 2010, single parents with children aged seven or over will be required to claim jobseekers allowance. After 12 months, they will be transferred to a private provider under flexible new deal provisions and, after 24 months, to work experience schemes. We will then have a situation in which single parents will be competing with jobseekers for the attention and support of flexible new deal providers, although there will be no additional incentives or resources to support that group.
Previous experience of asking private sector providers to deliver for single parents have shown that, without additional resources, they are unwilling to invest in this area. In what is usually described as parking, there are concerns that providers will take little action for the most vulnerable claimants, who will therefore be more likely to become eligible for the work for your benefit schemes.
The YWCA is concerned not only that this is a work for your benefit programme, but that it is also inappropriate for single parents and unlikely to lead to improved work outcomes. Single parents are likely to form a disproportionate number of the participants. We have gone from the Government talking about the idea in the Green Paper to a situation in which the proposal is going to be actively implemented.
Research from the Department for Work and Pensions itself suggests that there is little evidencenot just in this sector, but across othersthat work for benefit schemes actually increase the likelihood of finding work. Such a scheme is least effective at getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high. I am sad to say that that is the case in many of our constituencies. It is also not effective for individuals with multiple barriers for work, and it can reduce employment chances by limiting the time available for job search and failing to provide the skills and experience that employers value.
Despite all that evidence, the Government, in their Green Paper, preferred to rely on the following justification:
The report points to evidence that full-time activity in such programmes leads to improved job outcomes: between a half and two-thirds of leavers found unsubsidised work at some point in the three years after leaving the Wisconsin programme. Australia's 'Work for the Dole' had a 7 per cent net increase in participants going into jobs compared to nonparticipants.
Significantly, with reference to the Australian research, the Green Paper omitted a sentence that the research report included, in bold type:
However, other research found that WfD was ineffective in helping participants find sustainable employment with only one-quarter in work three months after leaving the programme and 14 per cent employed in full-time jobs.
It is seriously worrying that the DWP is prepared to consider work for benefit schemes without addressing some of the key problems that other programmes have encountered.
We must consider the current employment climate. At a time of rising unemployment, the Bills focus on conditionality and sanctions is inappropriate. We should be concentrating on protecting the jobs that already exist and strengthening the opportunities that are available for people to find work. Using the big stick might have been appropriate a few years ago, but not in the current economic climate. We are particularly concerned that rising unemployment will cause anxiety and fear[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood: Order. I will not allow conversations to take place between Members in the room while an amendment is being moved.

Paul Rowen: Thank you, Mr. Hood.
At this time of increased anxiety, lone parents, disabled people and those facing the prospect of unemployment will be the hardest hit. We thus believe that excluding lone parents with children of school age from the programme, as proposed in amendment 40, would be appropriate.
Amendment 65 would ensure that before any programmes were produced, there would have to be evidence that there was guaranteed and predictable access to good-quality, affordable and flexible child care.
A woman who came to see me in my surgery a couple of weeks ago was getting a job which would leave her under the 16-hour rule, so she would not be entitled to receive the child tax credits that would have enabled her to pay for her child care. She told me that she would end up being only £5 a week better off. She has decided that she wants to work, but she is working those hours for an extra £5 a week. I would prefer the Government to amend the 16-hour rule so that parents can pay for flexible child care and to ensure that child care is provided in areas where there are shortages. Such steps would represent money better spent on helping people back into work.
The provisions in this part of the Bill are meaningless because they do not deal with some of the problems and barriers that many lone parents face when moving into work. I would prefer the Government to concentrate on addressing that, rather than using the stick without the carrot.

John Robertson: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Hood. I look forward to serving on the Committee with you.
I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for mentioning my amendmenthopefully my input will result in better child care for children throughout the countryand I thoroughly endorse what he said. Having said that, this is about a Scottish element to the Bill, and I want to ensure that adequate support is available.
I recognise that there is a need to get people into work, particularly at the current time, and I disagree with the premise of amendment 40 because this has to be about exchange, not something for nothing. However, we know about the difficulty in reaching our targets and the prospective child poverty Bill, so we need to make sure that children are at the forefront of our minds when we consider the effect of this Bill. We cannot put extra strain on parents by making them worse off through a system that is supposed to work in the other direction. Given the increasing obligations to be placed on unemployed parents, there is widespread concern about a lack of high-quality, flexible and affordable child care in Scotland. Amendment 65 would ensure that such child care was considered before strict conditions were placed on parents.
Work on the amendment has been carried out by the Scottish Campaign on Welfare Reform, which includes more than 40 organisations that work with people experiencing exclusion and poverty in Scotland. I thank it for its work and help. The amendment has already attracted media coverage north of the border, and I thank the media for publicising the need to look at the amendment. I also thank Citizens Advice Scotland for its help, not just with this amendment, but through the other work that it has done with me over the years.
This amendment would ensure that, unless a claimant had access to good, affordable child care, they would not be faced with the Catch-22 of deciding between benefits and making sure that their children were looked after. According to figures from One Parent Families Scotland, more than 50,000 children could be affected by the planned changes. We must remember that there is no legal entitlement to child care in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, and no subsidy for child care for two-year-olds in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales.
There are limited means for systematically monitoring Scottish provision, so it is difficult to get a clear picture of the situation. However, we do know that between 2006 and 2008, the number of child care centres and child minders in Scotland fell from 10,388 to 10,322. While the decrease might be small, it is none the less a decrease at a time when we were hoping to give better coverage for children north of the border.
Costs are the biggest hurdle to getting a job with an income to support a family, especially for single parents and couples with low incomes. It is concerning that figures from the Daycare Trust show that the cost of out-of-school child care in Scotland increased by 29 per cent. in the last 12 months, while the cost of a nursery place rose by around 12 per cent. Given the problems in the finance markets and the fact that inflation is coming down, these increases are greater than we would expect parents paying for child care to face.
The DWPs impact assessment on the Bill, which was published in January, emphasised the importance of child care and recognised the risks of imposing obligations on parents. However, it stated that those were mitigated by the improvements in England and Wales as a result of the Childcare Act 2006, which places a duty on local authorities in those countries to secure sufficient child care for working parents. However, there is no such duty in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform recognised on Second Reading when he said:
The measures are not, as billed, Any job at any cost, regardless of whether there is child care provision or other elements. I take on board what many of my Scottish friends have said about...child care provision in some areas of Scotland, not least Glasgow.[Official Report, 27 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 268.]
While that recognition is welcome, we need to ensure that the Bill takes account of child care availability so that they are not just warm words. I look to the Minister to address these concerns.
It should be noted that a precedent was set with regard to the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, with regard to which Scotland was given nearly four years to put its house in order so that it could come in line with England and Wales. I am asking the Minister for something similar: for the Bill to give the Scottish Government and local authorities north of the border time to ensure that children in Scotland receive the same care and attention as those in the rest of the UK.

James Clappison: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We look forward to receiving your guidance as we seek to subject the Bill to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the Governments plans for work for your benefit were first mooted in their Green Paper of July 2008. It might assist the Committee if I say, by way of brief introduction, that in January 2008six months before the Government produced this schemewe published a Green Paper on the subject. We proposed a return-to-work programme, saying:
Our intention is that anyone who has been through the new system without finding work and has claimed the allowance for longer than two out of the previous three years will be required to join a mandatory long-term community work scheme as a condition of continuing to receive benefit support.
We do not resile one bit from that proposition, which we produced a little before the Government reached their position.
Given what the hon. Member for Rochdale said in general terms about the Liberal Democrats approach, I take it that they are opposed to the proposal in principle and that amendment 40 is not just a probing amendment to seek more details. It was not entirely clear whether that opposition in principle extended to all time or just the present economic circumstances. However, we must consider amendment 40 against that background.
It appears to meI look forward to legal advice and analysis from those with perhaps greater expertise than methat, under amendment 40, no parent with a child under 16 would be eligible for work for your benefit. The hon. Gentleman confined himself to talking about single parents, but the amendment would apply to any couple because it refers to responsibility for a child, not sole responsibility for a child, so it would appear to cover both members of any couple with a child under 16. Therefore, neither member of such a couple would be required to work under the provisions of work for your benefit after they had been out of work for two years and undertaken the flexible new deal programme for 12 months. We simply cannot agree with that.
We heard the hon. Gentlemans case, but it is always possible to mix and match research on such a subject, and it appears that there is no academic consensus. He referred to the Australian scheme of working for benefit, which appears to attract at least a degree of political consensus. A telling feature of that scheme is that while it was introduced by the previous Australian Government, the incoming Australian Government, who are of a different political complexion, have chosen to keep the scheme in place. That tells us something about the way in which the scheme in seen in Australia.
As a general proposition, we believe that work is a good thing, and that children in families with at least one member in work do better than children in workless families. There is a great deal of evidence to support that. That is not only due to the higher income that work generates, but because the child grows up seeing somebody in the family in work. Anything that brings a family into the routine of work, that gets children into the habit of seeing at least one of their parents go out to work, that prevents long-term worklessness, and that helps people get back into work, is a good thing.
I heard the various complaints made by the hon. Member for Rochdale. However, one is tempted to ask what members of families in low-income work, or those of families in which both members have low-paid jobs, would make of the hon. Gentlemans proposal that if two members of a couple are on benefits, neither should be in work. He did not indicate whether he would press amendment 40 to a Divisionhe has not yet heard the Ministers responsebut if he does so, we shall vote against it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West made reasonable points in support of amendment 65, which relates to child care. He said that his points related to Scotland, but they are important in themselves and we look forward to hearing the Ministers response to them.
I also note that amendment 62 is in this group, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Rochdale discussed it. It relates to clause 3 and the entitlement to jobseekers allowance. Clause 3as opposed to clause 1, which deals with the work for your benefit proposalsis concerned with the shift of claimants from income support to JSA. I have not yet heard the details of the amendment from the hon. GentlemanI will wait to hear what the Minister says about itbut it raises a reasonable point about the serious subject of domestic violence. I anticipate that we will be told that the amendment would make little difference in practice. However, it is worth considering domestic violence in such circumstances.
I say once again that if the hon. Gentleman presses amendment 40 to a Division, we will oppose it, because we think that the amendment represents opposition to the scheme in principle.

Tony McNulty: I, too, look forward to working under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood, and that of Mr. Amess.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Rochdale was offering a counsel of despair, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere implied. We are making legislation for the future, not for the immediate downturn. However, I would say that even in the period of economic downturn, there is more than sufficient evidence, research and academic work to suggest that it must be right to try to keep all individuals as close to the labour market as possible, if not to get them formally back into work. To suggest right at the start of our deliberations that it might be too difficult to help such individuals because of the current economic climate is an utter counsel of despair with which I do not agree at all. I do not think that such a suggestion is appropriate.
Notwithstanding other amendments that we will consider, the hon. Member for Rochdale did not set out an alternative, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere implied, and the proposal in the amendment would become worse than was suggested. As hon. Members will know, we have a policy on the stocks to raise the school leaving age under law to 18. The hon. Member for Rochdale is thus saying that no parent, of any descriptionsingle or pluralof a child up to the age of 18 would have to comply with the conditionality regime at all. That must be a nonsense in any circumstances, but it also makes a nonsense of the help and support that the state should provide parents, lone parents and couples in those circumstances. We havethis guides the entire Billa fundamental duty to keep as many people as we can as close to the labour market as possible, if not in it. If the Liberals wish to demur from that, it is entirely a matter for them, but it is a sorry day if that is really what they are suggesting.
This is not, I hasten to add, Workfare. Workfare, by definitionat its most crudeis a largely punitive program of work aimed at dissuading claimants from continuing their claim in the first place. To suggest, as other commentators have donethe hon. Gentleman is not original in this regardthat this is Workfare of the most punitive kind is not correct. Work for your benefit will consist of full-time work experience that is backed up by additional employment support designed to give the long-term unemployed the best chance of taking work in the open labour market. As far as I am aware, that compares with no proposal from the Liberal Democrats, which is a shame. We think it is absolutely right that, as the duration of a claim increases, claimants are expected to do more to help themselves back to work. There is nothing shameful or underhand about this. It is a proper balance of rights and responsibilities, and we would argue that that is in the interest of the individuals concerned.
We have said throughoutfrom the Green Paper onwardsthat, given that this is not Workfare, we will not insist on, in any way, shape or form, lone parents taking any old job regardless of any significant barriers that may remain to securing employment. There are safeguards to prevent customers from being sanctioned if a lack of appropriate child care prevents them from participating in work for your benefit. It is important that parents who claim JSA understand their responsibility to make reasonable efforts to find appropriate, affordable child care, but we want to get to a personalised system. Each and every one of the assorted barriers that an individual might face will be taken into account when looking at their progression through the back-to-work programme. That addresses points raised in subsequent amendments.
I take cognisance of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West that things are not as they should be in Scotland. There is no UK-wide equivalent of the Childcare Act 2006, which puts a new duty on local authorities in England and Wales to secure, as far as is practical, sufficient child care to meet the needs of working parents. I might need to mull over my hon. Friends proposal in due course, and I ask him not to press it to a Division on the promise that, after reflection, I will come back to it on Report. As we see elsewhere in the Bill, when there is this interface between devolved matters and UK matters, we are trying to accommodate the devolved Administrations. I take much of what he said to heart and I promise to pursue the matter further.
On the substance of the amendment, we think that it has been drawn wrongly, with drafting technicalities that would render it rather too broad. I am assured by lawyers who know such things far better than II wake up every day happy that I am not a lawyerthat those who are not parents could conceivably object to going on to a conditionality regime because affordable and practicable child care did not exist for parents. The effect of the amendment could be far wider than anticipated if those without children were able to claim that they should not participate in work for your benefit because appropriate child care was not available. I know that that sounds daft, and I know that it is not the thrust of what my hon. Friend wants to achieve, but nonetheless I am assured that the effect could be that wide.
We take domestic violence very seriously but, again, amendment 62, although perhaps tabled with the right intentions, does not come anywhere near to achieving its aim. Let us be clear: immigration rule 289Athose rules and regulations are dear to my heart in some waysis quite rightly about there being a pathway to indefinite leave to remain for people caught in circumstances of domestic violence that have led to the irrevocable breakdown of a relationship. That is thus an appropriate pathway into ILR. We would argue that once an individual has established indefinite leave to remain, it is right and proper for that individual to be afforded the same treatment as everybody else. That does not mean ignoring the domestic violence background, but that will be part of the personalised service under conditionality. Despite raising a very important issue, amendment 62 either does not achieve what it seeks to, or, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested, is irrelevant or superfluous, because the issue is already covered in the broader policy and the legislation.
To start as I mean to go on, we reject amendments 40 and 62. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West not to press amendment 65 to a Division on the grounds that it concerns an important issue that I shall consider in more detail, and on which I shall get back to the House on Report.

Paul Rowen: I accept that amendment 40 was badly drafted and that it should have referred to children of single parents. However, on amendment 62, which deals with the important matter of domestic violence, I do not believe that the Minister gave us an adequate explanation. Far too much of the Bill is left to further regulations, so I would like to press amendment 62 to a Division. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 40.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 19, leave out paragraphs (e) and (f).

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 88, in clause 2, page 5, line 20, after failure, insert
, including demonstrating that the failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health problem,.
Amendment 89, in clause 2, page 5, line 26, at end insert
which must include that persons health at the time of their failure to comply..
Amendment 77, in schedule 3, page 81, line 39, after requirement, insert
which must include the persons health at the time of the failure to comply..

James Clappison: We now come to amendment 3, which is designed to elicit more details from the Government. The relevant paragraphs concern good cause in relation to sanctions for failure to comply with regulations under the work for your benefit scheme.
We would like to hear more detail about that. Will the Minister provide some examples of the principles that animate that particular provision? Will he also give some practical examples of what might amount to good cause? As matters stand we are not seeking to oppose this, but we want more details; at the moment the Bill is fairly broad regarding the subject.
Amendment 88 is a Scottish nationalist amendment from the hon. Member for Glasgow, East. It covers an important point about whether fluctuating mental health problems should, in effect, amount to good cause of failure to comply with work-related activities. That would seem a reasonable point to consider. We will be interested to hear the Ministers comments about how that would fit in with the Governments ideas on good causeone would imagine that they will have given that matter some thought already.
Amendment 89 prescribes a persons general health as a matter to be taken into account in determining whether or not that person has good cause for failing to comply with requirements. Again, one imagines that the Government will have something to say about the issue in their view of good cause.
Amendment 77, which is tabled in the name of the Conservative party, makes the same point about general health amounting to good cause, but within the case of failure to comply with requirements where the claimant is dependent on drugs. That is a general subject to which we will return, but we would like to hear the Ministers views at this stage as to whether in this case general health problems might amount to a good cause for failure to comply with requirements. Again, we simply want to elicit information from the Government on that; it is a reasonable point to consider.

John Mason: Thank you, Mr. Hood, for your patience as I learn how these Committees work.
I refer, briefly, to amendments 88 and 89. We would like to see the issue of health clarified because the words good cause seem quite vague. Perhaps I should say, first, that I have reservations about the whole direction of the Bill; it seems that there are a lot of sticks and not very many carrots. The statement was made earlier that no one should get something for nothing; but when we are dealing with children and people with disabilities and poor health and so on, yes, we as a society have a duty to provide something for nothing.
We have a slight fear that the Bill has been geared toward England, and Scotland has been a bit of an afterthought, but I am reassured by the Ministers earlier statements that he will look at the Scottish situation. I also confirm that I agree that work is a good thing, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, and that children who grow up in a family where work is part of the routine have a big advantage: it will help them move into work themselves. So we are positive about helping people get into work. But when it comes to the idea of a personalised system, which affects health and other issues as well, many Members across the House wonder whether Jobcentre Plus can really be as personal as the Minister hopes it can be. I would certainly hope it could be, but my experience of dealing with bureaucracies and bodies like Jobcentre Plus is that it is very difficult to personalise their services.
Sometimes there is an assumption that a persons health, whether physical or mental, is constant. The reality is that the health of people with fluctuating health conditions does vary. I am interested to hear how the Minister thinks we might deal with that.

Meg Munn: I want to raise a brief point on these amendments, and specifically to speak against amendment 3. My concern relates to people with learning disabilities, and I would like some reassurance from the Minister that regulations will specifically address how this new proposal will impact on such people. It is likely that there will be a number of people with learning disabilities on JSAan increasing number are coming on to JSAand they are likely to be people at the milder end of the spectrum. So I would like an assurance that regulations will address that and ensure that, in relation to these specific issues, people with learning disabilities will be taken into account. It is enormously important that they are given equal access to the opportunities that the Bill presents.

Paul Rowen: The Minister might be able to help the Committee with this clause. We are dealing with a conditionality aspectthe withdrawal of benefit if a person does not comply. What we do not have in front of us are the detailed regulations that will be used to apply that conditionality. Mind, along with many other organisations, has concerns, which are reflected in these amendments, about how that conditionality might be applied.
In previous Bills that I have been involved with, the most recent of which became the Pensions Act 2008, the Minister gave an assurance during the Bills passage that those regulations would be made available as and when they were produced by the Department. That would address some of the real fears and concerns that Members have about people who have fluctuating mental illnesses that prevent them from attending an interview when they are summoned. If we could see from the regulations that there is scope for that to be taken account of, or that there is a mechanism that can be applied, I am sure that many Members would feel a lot happier.
Will the Minister therefore give us an assurance that we can see the regulations at the earliest possible opportunity? That would allay some of the quite reasonable fears about how this sanction would be applied.

Tony McNulty: On the broader point about regulations, allegedly in this room or certainly close to it there is a rather thickfor which I apologisecompendium, as promised, of where there will be regulations or a regulation-making power throughout the Bill. Where possible, the compendium contains at least the outline of what those regulations will include. I do not doubt that it will find its way to a pile, either close to members of the Committee or otherwise, at some stage this morning. I apologise that it is tedious and very detailed, but the Committee will know that it is one of those areas of legislationnot dissimilar to immigrationwhere there is a massive pile of regulation and rules alongside primary legislation. That is not newit is just the way that things have developed, probably since the early 70s and before.
In terms of the perfectly reasonable debate earlierI always get this in at some stage during our Committeesthe Committee should be aware that we should not suffer from undue specificity. If we put something on the face of the Bill that looks in the first instance as though it blocks off an option or is trying to put a principle on the face of the Bill, that can in many circumstances, rather erroneously and unintentionally, preclude a whole series of other things from being included, because of the undue specificity. That is why we have regulations alongside to explore things much more fully.
Therefore, to be perfectly frank, I do not understand amendment 3, which seeks to simply take away the regulation-making power, does not put anything in its place, and says that we cannot prescribe what we mean in terms of matters and circumstances and good cause.

James Clappison: I repeat that amendment 3 is designed as a probing amendment to seek details. At this stage I will not be moving it to a vote.

Tony McNulty: In that context, I fully understand amendment 3 as a probing amendment. It clearly made no sense on its own terms. But I apologiseI realise that the hon. Gentleman said probing at the start.
If the Committee seeks an exhaustive list on the face of the Bill outlining what good causes may be, that is a fools errand. That is in the sense that, with the greater personalisation and the focus on individuals, we would hope to be as flexible as possible precisely because of the very personal nature of that relationship. Of course, that will include a persons health and other such matters. Currently, in terms of sanctions on the new deal, the following circumstances all constitute good cause, in terms of an impediment to the individual being able to comply with the conditions: disease or physical and mental disablement, travelling time, caring responsibilities, attendance at court, arranging or attending a funeral, being in a lifeboat crew or a part-time firefighter, domestic emergencies, emergency duties, continued participation potentially putting the individuals health and safety at risk, antisocial behaviour orders, and community orders or community disposal orders.
Equally, we could not have an exhaustive list of health conditions. The hon. Member for Glasgow, East will know that elsewhere in the Bill we will be discussing what we can do in the most flexible of terms for individuals with ongoing disability, fluctuating conditions orparticularly in the case of later clausesproblematic drug use. So, quite deliberately, the Bill is drawn as broadly as possible, to be as all-encompassing as possible in terms of providing the individual with as much scope as possible for a good cause to be part of the developing relationship between the personal adviser and the individual. Two years down the line, at the end of the new deal, after 24 months on JSA, we think not only that the conditionality should applywe are very clear about thatbut equally, that it should apply in the most flexible of circumstances. We should take full cognition of an individuals circumstances, and ensure that what is established in terms of good cause is as broadly drawn as possible.
I do not accept the contention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, East that somehow Jobcentre Plus will not be up for this. It has been and will continue to be. I am glad he did not go down the same road as the hon. Member for Rochdale and talk about trying to legislate, in all the circumstances of February 2009, for what will prevail in the future once we get through the recession. The starting point taken by the hon. Member for Hertsmereto tease out more readily what we mean by good causeis, on reflection, a perfectly reasonable probing amendment. I hope that I have sought, at least in part, to answer his questions. I am grateful that he is not going to pursue amendment 3. I would add, given what I have already said, that amendments 77, 88 and 89 are therefore not necessary. I also think they are problematic, in the sense of how they relate to some other parts of the Bill, and some other parts of what we are doing. They potentially restrict rather than allow the greatest degree of flexibility, which is central to all that we are trying to do in terms of the two-way relationship rooted in the conditionality regime.

James Clappison: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 40, at end insert
(8A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (8) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House..

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 7, in clause 2, page 5, line 28, at end insert
(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Minister under subsection (4) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House..
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 5, line 37, at end insert
(6A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Minister under subsection (5) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House..
Amendment 22, in schedule 1, page 66, line 9, at end insert
23A A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Minister under Part 1 of Schedule 1 shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House..
Amendment 15, in clause 7, page 13, line 37, leave out subsection (9) and insert
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House..
Amendment 19, in clause 19, page 25, line 18, at end insert
(10A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsections (6), (7), (8), (9) or (10) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House..

James Clappison: It may assist the Committee to know that all these amendments stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They relate to the type of parliamentary scrutiny that regulations should be subject to under the Bill. In each case, they require the affirmative resolution procedure as an alternative to the negative resolution procedure that is in place at the moment in the Bill.
As the Committee, and anyone who looks at the Bill, will have gathered, it contains an enormous number of regulation-making powers. Without counting them up exactly, I understand that the vast majority are subject to the negative procedure and only one or two are subject to the affirmative procedure. It would take up a lot of the Committees time and possibly generate inappropriate debate if one was to suggest that the negative procedure was taken out in every case and replaced by the affirmative procedure. In these amendments we have taken what we regard as some of the more important issues currently covered by the negative procedureI will be corrected if I am wrong about that, but at the moment they seem to be covered by itand suggested, as a way of opening up a debate, whether or not they should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am afraid that it will be necessary to leap between a number of subjects and areas in the Bill.
First, amendment 4 would require the use of the affirmative procedure under clause 1(8). That is in the case of hardship payments where sanctions have been applied for failure to comply with work for your benefit regulations. This is obviously a sensitive issue. We observe that in the notes on clauses, provision for such hardship payments is contained in section 20B(4) of the Jobseekers Act 1995. It may be that the Government envisage the hardship provisions working here in the same way as the ones that are already established. It is certainly important to hear a few words from the Minister on this subject.
Amendment 7 refers to proposed new section 2D. This is a different subjectthat of work-related activity for claimants in receipt of various income-based benefits, including employment and support allowance. The regulation-making powers in question, to which this amendment relates, are very important in the context of what is required of these claimants by way of work-related activity. I am sure the Committee will understand that when I say work-related activity, it means not that a person will be required to look for a job, but that they will be required to undertake activity that serves as a preparation for finding work and helps to move them nearer to the labour market. It covers claimants in receipt of a number of different types of benefit.
So these regulation-making powers go to the heart of what is required of claimants. They, for example, prescribe the time and amount of work-related activity that a person is required to undertake, the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be regarded as undertaking such activity, and the imposition of a sanction where a person has failed to comply with requirements. Those are important matters, and they stand out from among the other regulation-making powers as ones where it is appropriate to at least consider whether the affirmative resolution procedure should be used, rather than the negative one.
Amendment 8 relates to regulation-making powers to reduce benefit where sanctions are imposed on a claimant who has failed to comply with requirements on work-related activity. We regard reductions in benefit and the length of time for which it is to be reduced as important matters. We note that, in this context, the Gregg reportthe Committee will be familiar with Professor Gregg, who gave evidence to us in our sitting two weeks agosaid of the sanctions that are currently in place:
Whilst the current regime is broadly effective and certainly increases compliance with labour market conditions, there is also widespread acknowledgment that it is complex and difficult to understand. The process is also, in some circumstances, time-consuming and costly to operate. This means that the system is not as clear and crisp as it could be, which reflects the piecemeal development of conditionality across different benefits based on different legislation, different regulations and different case law.
The Government, in their December White Paper, admitted that there were shortcomings in some respects in the way sanctions were workingalthough we know that the Government are seeking, through the Bill, to move benefits together, which will reduce the number of benefits to some extent. In the light of those criticisms and considerations, it is important to have a debate about this.
In their White Paper, the Government suggested that the initial sanction for non-compliance for jobseekers should be one weeks loss of jobseekers allowance. We wonder whether the Government have the same amount in mind in the case of non-compliance for work-related activity.
Amendment 22 relates to schedule 1, which makes various amendments to the Jobseekers Act 1995. The delegated powers memorandum states that it contains amendments to the Act, which would provide a framework under which some people are not required to meet some of the conditions
but...are expected to prepare for work in the future.
It contains detailed provisions related to conditionality, dealing with requirements to attend work-focused interviews; powers to direct claimants to undertake activities relating to finding employments, becoming employable, and remaining employed; action plans, requirements to undertake work-related activity and application of sanctions. These are very important matters. They may apply, in some cases, to lone parents with younger children; we think it is right to raise the issue once again in this context, at the level of parliamentary scrutiny which is appropriate to them.
Amendment 15 relates to clause 7, which gives the Secretary of State the power to abolish income support. This is obviously a very sweeping regulationa very big step. We apprehend that this is the direction in which the Government wish to travel. We understand that that will be done once the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to prescribe income support to groups of people because they are catered for elsewhere in the benefits system. As I indicated a moment ago, the Government are trying to move benefits together, which was recommended in various reports into this subject. By saying that this is a big step, I support the proposition. It is perhaps appropriate to consider whether this should be subject to the affirmative procedure as well, given that it is a step of great magnitude in social security policy. At the moment it appears that it is subject to the negative procedure. We wonder whether there is not a case for asking whether this step should be subject to the affirmative procedure when it comes to be taken.
Finally, in the same vein, we come to clause 19 and benefit sanctions following a first offence of benefit fraud. This is a different subjectup to now we have been talking about jobseekers allowance, work for your benefit and work-related activity for claimantsthis concerns benefit offenders who have committed benefit fraud. We will come to this clause in due courseno doubt we will have a wider debate on itbut it is the same point about the type of parliamentary scrutiny that is appropriate. Under clause 19(6) to (10), which deal with the amounts by which benefits will be reduced, we once again wonder whether this is an appropriate case for the affirmative procedure. That is the common thread that runs through this: a concern for proper parliamentary scrutiny. We think it is entirely appropriate to ask about that in these circumstances and to raise the issue. We look forward to the Ministers response.

Tony McNulty: To echo what the hon. Gentleman said, it is entirely appropriate to table such amendments and there is a consequent and ongoing tension between primary and secondary legislation. As I have tried to indicate, this isnot quite uniquely, because immigration is the samea whole area of UK law where there is an entire regulatory framework alongside the primary legislative framework That is the way that both immigration and benefits law have worked for some time.
I also accept that there is a desire to scrutinise aspects of policy surrounding the Bill. For reasons that I shall come to, I do not accept that this is a necessarily proportionate way of doing it. There is a balance to be struck; there are existing safeguards to ensure that the regulations receive proper scrutiny. For example, we work closely with the Social Security Advisory Committee on regulation. We have shown with the employment and support allowance regulations that we are willing to go beyond what is required of a Department by law and engage constructively with the Committee. We will also study with great care the memo from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and will respond appropriately.
If I may, I shall briefly discuss each element in turn. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, Amendment 4 relates to the hardship payments under the work for your benefit regime. I can assure hon. Members that we intend to apply pretty much the same hardship regime that is already operating for JSA. It is more an updating of the regulations than the introduction of anything substantially new. In that context, I think it appropriate that it is negativethe Committee will know that negative resolutions are laid and, under the negative process, hon. Members can pray against them and they can eventually get their day in court, for want of a better phrase. Negative does not mean that there is no recourse to a degree of scrutiny.
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, amendment 7 relates to clause 2 and how those moving from income support to JSA are treated. Again, we propose to introduce regulations that are similar to existing ones that relate to work-focused interviews, action plans and jobseekers agreements, including relevant good cause provisions. They are therefore appropriately carried out under the negative resolution.
Amendment 15 is strange given that it relates to the abolition of income support. The key safeguard here, as the hon. Gentleman said, is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that there are no groups who still need it before the benefit is abolished. By the time the negative resolution is laid, everyone will be clear that there is no need for income support any more, so it should be abolished. Why that should not be done under a negative rather than a positive procedure escapes me; we would only lay that negative resolution when the time is right for that particular benefit to be abolished.
I have found an amendment where the hon. Gentleman was in error: amendment 19 is unnecessaryI can confirm that the affirmative procedure will already apply. The regulation-making powers are intended to be the same as those existing in the two strikes legislation in the Social Security Fraud Act 2001, because this is inserted in that legislationbut it will be the affirmative rather than the negative.
The Committee will be aware that in both the delegated powers memorandum and the document to which I referredwhich is now, I hope, availablethere are copious notes and tables about where regulation powers are taken and whether they are to be pursued under negative or positive procedures.
Amendments 8 and 22 refer to the establishment of the progression to work groupin particular, those who have moved from jobseekers allowance to income support. I appreciate that the powers seem wide-ranging, but we either build on the existing JSA regulations or mirror the types of conditionality that will be applied in income support before people migrate to JSA. I accept the hon. Gentlemans point that notwithstanding that it builds on existing conditionality, we are still developing what we want to take forward as the Gregg modelfor want of a better phrase.
Although I am not accepting the amendmentsGod forbid; I do not do that sort of thingI think that the hon. Gentleman does, potentially, have a point. As we develop the model of conditionality during the Bill, amendments 8 and 22 may be ones that we should return to given the import and the substance of those regulations, and the significant shift that they will make. In that spirit, I still ask him to take the lot of them away, but with amendments 8 and 22 the hon. Gentleman does have half a point, at least. I need to reflect on whether it is more than half a point.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and his implicit acceptance that we are subjecting this aspect to proper parliamentary scrutiny. I have, at least, got half a pointwhich is half a point more than I have sometimes been credited with after much longer consideration of other Bills.
The Minister will accept that at the outset we were trying to select some of the things which we thought were most important for affirmative resolution debate. I want to say very gently, without wishing to dislodge any good spirit, that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Secretary of State making a decision, but it is not always the case that we agree with what the Secretary of State decides; we hope we do in this case. In the light of the Ministers comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Meg Munn: I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 1, page 2, line 40, at end insert
(8A) Regulations under this section must make provision to ensure that providers
(a) submit to the Secretary of State data showing the number of participants with a disability at every state of the scheme by impairment category;
(b) are required to show how they will meet the needs of participants with particular disabilities..

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 74, in clause 1, page 3, line 21, at end insert
(1A) For the purposes of, or in connection with, any scheme within section 17A(1) the Secretary of State shall review data showing the number of participants with a disability at every stage of the scheme by impairment category..

Meg Munn: The amendments are very simple. They seek to explore how the proposals may impact on disabled people. We know that these people, generally, are one of the groups most excluded from the work force. Only 49 per cent. of disabled people and only 17 per cent. of people with learning disabilities are in work. That suggests that the failure is largely that of the workplace and not of disabled people.
The amendments seek to ensure careful consideration of the impact of the proposals on disabled people. I am grateful to Mencap for its briefing on this matter. There is a concern that such measures may be introduced as a consequence of factors outside the control of individual disabled people, such as failure by the flexible new deal provider, or the unwillingness of employers to take on, and acknowledge that there are problems in relation to, those people. The DWPs impact assessment on this proposal stated:
This policy proposal is expected to have a greater impact on people with a disability as they are more likely to reach the end of Flexible New Deal without having moved into employment.
I am seeking reassurances in relation to this whole area that this issue will be properly monitored, that providers will have to provide information about people with specific disabilities, whether learning or physical, and that these issues will be properly looked at by the relevant Minister so that the impact of these important changes on the way we deal with these issues is properly examined, on the basis that people with disabilities face particular barriers.
To sum up, I am essentially seeking to ensure that it is possible to identify what is happening to disabled people as a result of the changes, and to ensure that their specific needs are recognised in the future.

Mark Harper: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood.
Although I share the sentiments that inspired the amendment, I have a concern about it. I, too, looked at the excellent briefing note from Mencap, which covers the use of providers and relates to some of the evidence that we heard from Ministers. We have spoken about the black box conceptthe concept of letting providers go off and deliver what they are supposed to do to get people into work. The concern is that if one says that those providers have to provide a detailed raft of information to the Department, which inevitably means that the Department is going to take action as a result of that information, one is in danger, if one is not careful, of effectively having the Department micro-manage what the providers are doing. I am not sure whether that is the right solution.
Nevertheless, the hon. Lady has drawn attention to a genuine concern. The way to tackle that, when one is getting providers to get people into work, is to look at the needs of individuals and the fee that the providers receive. If providers are paid a flat fee, there is exactly the danger that she suggests: those who require more help and support to get into work may well be neglected. If, however, the fee reflects the amount of work that will be needed to get someone into work, it ensures that those people who have a greater requirement for help and support will get it. That would be a better solution than the amendments that the hon. Lady is proposing. However, like her, I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say, to see whether he will reflect on the point that I have made. If he will not, her proposals may actually have some merit.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. We look forward to your guidance during our proceedings.
I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley. She raised the same point during the oral evidence hearings, and we had some brief discussions on the issue. I also welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean. What we are hoping to achieveI am sure that there is agreement across the House on thisis to provide help to those who are furthest from the labour market. In particular, people with learning difficulties have stubbornly remained furthest from the labour market for far too long. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, along with many of us, will have seen excellent examples of innovative programmes that have provided real jobs for people with learning difficulties. One of thoseI am sure that she is aware of itis Project Search, which we are piloting at Norfolk and Norwich hospital and Leicester city council. It is an exemplary project, providing good training, job coaches and assistance to those peoplepeople who seemingly could not find work but have found work.
I would like to address the point that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean raised about this black box. We do not want to be so specific that we dictate the parameters within which providers assist people with learning disabilities to find employment. To date, that has not worked. We are not in the position to be able to say that what we have done so far, universally, has worked for people with learning disabilities. We can certainly point to some good examples and, as is often the case with public policy, where we see good things working we just want that to be spread across the board, but delivering that is always the frustration for policy makers, whether nationally or locally.
In terms of the people that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley referred tothe risk assessment of people with learning disabilities, or people with disabilitiesit is likely to be those people who come to the end of the flexible new deal and have not found employment. She is right to highlight that, and I can give her some assurances with regards to what we intend to do at that point.
We intend that the Jobcentre Plus personal adviser will review, in partnership with providers, every case in which someone reaches the end of the flexible new deal without finding sustained work, Mr. Hood. This is to ensure we have a clear idea of the barriers and circumstances that an individual facesyou will hear that word repeatedly throughout our proceedings because it is about tailoring our support and resources to individualsand will act as a safeguard to ensure that only those who are capable of working will be referred to this programme.
We acknowledge that some jobseekers have particular circumstances that we need to consider as we design the programme and the way it operates. That is why we intend that the work for your benefit programme will offer personalised and tailored support. We will incorporate appropriate safeguards to ensure that the work experience offered is suitable and relevant to an individuals circumstances, in the way that the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested earlier. People with disabilities who have restrictions within their jobseekers agreement relating to the days and hours they must be available to work, will also be able to apply those restrictions to participation in the work for your benefit programme. Similarly, any restrictions in jobseekers agreement on the type of work a person is available for will also apply. It is not our intention that people will be required to participate in activities that are unsuitable and inappropriate to their personal circumstances.
We expect our suppliers to be exemplary in meeting their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, including the disability equality duty. This aims to ensure that all bodies actively promote equality for disabled people when providing a service on behalf of the Secretary of State. The contract for the work for your benefit programme will require suppliers to support the Secretary of State in his duty to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. The DWPs contract management arrangements will monitor delivery in that regard, and customers will have the opportunity to discuss any problems with their jobseeker advisers. As my hon. Friend is aware, we will be piloting those. It is important that we monitor the effectiveness of this, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform said, we do not want any undue specificity. Is that correct?

Tony McNulty: Yes.

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful. We do not want a list because there would be an inevitable discussion about who is on it and who is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley will be aware of that from her time as a Minister. We want the flexibility that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean referred to, so that we can see a step change in the pool of talent among people with learning disabilities. We have seen such people providing excellent work and being assets to the organisations they work for.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for the Ministers comments so far, but he has not addressed the issue I raised on differential fees for the rewards paid to providers. I know that the Department is thinking about that idea and will pilot it. My concern is that if providers are paid a flat fee for every person they try to get into work, so that the fee structure does not reflect the amount of help and support required, there is a danger that certain categories of people will be neglected, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley suggested. It might be too late if they have to wait until they fail to get a new job under the flexible new deal. Will the Minister say a little on the Departments plans for differential fees?

Jonathan R Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up on that important point. There has been concern over cherry-picking, not just under this provision, but under our supported employment programme. We do not want to see cherry-picking. Under this programme, we will develop a payment and contracts model to minimise that risk. We are also exploring the new personalised employment programme and the new accelerator funding model. This is another example of where we are running pilots so that we get things right. I am sure he will agree that we must balance value for money with the personalised, tailored programmes that will provide success for the individual in gaining employment.
Following those remarks and my assurances to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley and the Committee, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Meg Munn: The last thing I want to see is micro-management; that is not the right way forward. I wanted reassurance that there will be proper monitoring and evaluation; without that, I fear that we will continue to see disabled people disadvantaged. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the disability equality duty. As he has reassured me that there will be management arrangements for proper monitoring and evaluation of the issues I have raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

James Clappison: This is the appropriate moment to raise one matter with the Minister. As was the case with the proposals that we brought out before this programme, it is important to bear in mind that the work for your benefit scheme will not kick in initially with a jobseekers claim, but only after a jobseekers claim has been extant for a considerable period. As I understand the Government proposal, it must be at least two years from the beginning of the jobseekers claim and after a year of job search followed by a year on the flexible new deal.
The commencement of the work for your benefit programme is tied to the beginning of the flexible new deal. We understand from the December 2008 White Paper that the programme is due to be piloted from 2010. It states:
The pilots will start in 2010, in line with the first people completing 12 months on Flexible New Deal.
As Committee members may recollect, the flexible new deal is not expected to commence until 1 October 2009. As we speak, the end stage of the tendering process is subject to delays. What is the implication of this for the work for your benefit scheme? Is the work for your benefit scheme still tied to the flexible new deal? Is it therefore likely to be affected by the circumstances that are apparently causing some turbulence in the flexible new deal tendering process?

Tony McNulty: Briefly, the answer to the perfectly fair question is probably yes and no. Yes, in the sense that of course it is inextricably linked with the flexible new deal. And, notwithstanding periods of reflection and turbulence, there is no proposal to do anything other than bring in the flexible new deal by October 2009. The two are inextricably linked. For reference, and no more, we have asked the healthy list of providers who bid for the flexible new deal to revisit some of their assumptions. The original assumption was for a cohort of 100,000 long-term unemployed. We have now asked them to look at a range from 100,000 to 300,000. So it is a live contract process which, unlike this legislation, is very much connected with the economic downturn. Yes, the two are linked but no, at this stage there are no plans other than to pursue the start date for the flexible new deal of 1 October. In that context I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jimmy Hood: May I advise members of the Committee that the huge document that the Minister mentioned in an earlier contribution is now in the room? I have had copies put on the table. The subject is welfare reform and the use of regulation-making powers.

Clause 2

Work-related activity: income suport claimants and partners of claimants

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 2, page 4, line 21, at end insert
(A1) This section does not apply in the case of a single parent with a child under five years of age..

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment 44, in clause 2, page 4, line 21, at end insert
(A1) This section does not apply in the case of a single parent with a child under seven years of age..

James Clappison: Clause 2 deals with the work-related activity which may be required of certain benefit claimants, including benefit claimants on income support, income-based jobseekers allowance or income-related employment and support allowance. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill, the clause appears to affect lone parents of younger children who are currently in receipt of income support. This is the relevant point to ventilate some important considerations for lone parents of younger children.
Amendment 39 deals with the age that the youngest child must have reached before lone parents are required to take part in the work-related activity regime envisaged in these proposals. It would set that age at five. Amendment 44, which has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats, sets it at seven. The background to this is quite important. Until last year it was possible for a single parent to remain on income support until the youngest child reached the age of 16. However, in June 2007 the Government announced that they were moving lone parents from income support to jobseekers allowance in stages.
The process began last year, when the age limit for single parents to remain on income support was reduced to the youngest child reaching the age of 12. As we speak, the process of transferring lone parents from income support to jobseekers allowance is proceeding in jobcentres up and down the country. The age at which lone parents are transferred from income support to jobseekers allowance will fall to seven in October 2010. That leaves open the question of what is expected of lone parents with children under seven. Of course, they will not be expected to move from income support to jobseekers allowance, as is the case with lone parents of children over the age of seven, but under the Governments plans they will be expected to fulfil the requirements set out in the clause, some of which we have already touched on when debating other amendments.
Our understanding of the Governments proposals as a whole is that they see lone parents as part of a progression to work group from the time their youngest child is aged one. The Government have set out how they see that group in their discussion paper on the implementation of the Gregg review. According to their response to that review, lone parents with children aged between one and two years will be
Required to attend Work Focused interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan.
However, the important point is that when the youngest child reaches the age of three, lone parents will be
Required to follow the full progression to Work regime based around Work Focused interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction.
That presumably means that lone parents with children aged three or over will be subject to the regime of sanctions for failing to comply with the requirements, as is set out in the Bill.
Amendment 39 would substitute the age of three with the age of five as the point at which the regime and all its requirements would begin. The age of five was specified in the Governments July 2008 Green Paper as the appropriate age at which requirements could begin to be made on lone parents. The Green Paper envisaged piloting a requirement for lone parents whose youngest child is five or six to attend relevant skills training where that would address the skills gaps identified as a barrier to starting work. Subsequently, the Gregg review suggested that lone parents with a youngest child between the age of one and seven should be in the progression to work group, as I have indicated, as part of the Gregg vision of personalised conditionality, although I do not believe that Professor Gregg specified the age of three as the age at which that move to the regime would occur, as the Government are now setting out.
The progression to work group is intended to prepare people for full availability for work, and in this case we are talking about preparing single parents for entry to the jobseekers regime when their youngest child reaches the age of seven. Commencing the work-related activity for them at the age of five, as suggested in amendment 39, would give them two years in which to undertake work-related activity to prepare them for work, and something along those lines seems to have been present in the Governments thinking in the July 2008 Green Paper.
The question I wish to put to the Minister is this: why is the two years of work-related activity in that regime from the time the youngest child reaches the age of five insufficient to prepare lone parents for work?

James Plaskitt: In view of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, can he tell us what has happened to the recommendation of his own partys social justice policy group, chaired by the former leader of his party, that:
Whilst their youngest child is below the age of 5 they should spend between 5 and 10 hours a week preparing for work?

James Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for studying that document, because it has proved to be the inspiration behind much of what we are debating today. It created the momentum of the debate because we had 11 years in which there was no movement at all and the age remained 16. To answer the hon. Gentlemans question directly, he will see that the age of five was specifically mentioned in that report as the age of the youngest child at which parents should be moved across, and of course that document did not have in mind the full regime that we are now talking about. The Under-Secretary of State looks perplexed about that, but when that document was written the social justice policy group did not have in mind and could not know the full regime proposed by the Government. We have no issue with the regime as a generality, but in the case of parents of younger children we think that there is an issue to discuss in cases where parents will be subject to the regime and to sanctions for failing to comply. I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to accept that there are issues to be debated and that it is right for us to debate the age at which that move takes place. He has not answered the question of why two years is insufficient time.

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman said that I looked perplexed. I was perplexed because I did not understand whether he shared the view of his own policy commissionand, indeed, our viewthat there should be work-focused activity when the child is under, not at, the age of five. I would be grateful for his response.

James Clappison: I think that I responded to that in my answer to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. We are talking about the regime, not some general work-focused activity. We have no problem with interviews. However, this is a very specific regime in which action plans have to be agreed, directions are given and sanctions may follow for non-compliance from when the child is aged three, as the hon. Lady knows from her study of both the documents and the Governments response to the Gregg report.
I hoped that the hon. Lady would answer the question of why two years was insufficient time for lone parents to prepare for work. We are willing to listen to the debate. Two years is a long time for somebody to prepare for work. We are talking about somebody whose lack of availability for work is caused, in the first instance, by the fact that they are caring for a child. They are not in the same position as somebody in receipt of employment and support allowance, who may need to spend time managing a condition that they have. Here the inhibition is the care of a child; that is what prevents the parent from going into the labour market. Five is a reasonable age in such circumstances, as it leaves two years for a parent to prepare for work, and the child will have started school. It is reasonable to ventilate the issue, and we look forward to hearing why two years is not sufficient time for a parent to be under the regime envisaged in the proposals.

James Plaskitt: I wish to continue to press the hon. Gentleman on that point. As I said before, his own social justice policy group says that a lone parent should spend between five and 10 hours a week preparing for work if their child is under five. What activity did the group envisage during those five to 10 hours?

James Clappison: I think that I have answered the hon. Gentlemans question. I am waiting for an answer from him as to why two years is not sufficient. I shall make a deal with him. I am interested to hear his answer[Interruption.] I have given the hon. Gentleman our answer.

Jimmy Hood: Order. I ask for a little calm.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman has had his answer. The commission for social justice could not have known about this specific regime, under which lone parents will be subject to sanctions. I think that the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, feel that it is reasonable to ventilate the issue. I return to my question: why is two years not sufficient? If he cannot answer, I look forward to the Ministers response.

James Plaskitt: I assume that the hon. Gentlemans commission would argue that two years was not sufficient, otherwise why would it recommend that the job preparation activity should commence while the child was under five? I return to my earlier question about the five to 10 hours, which he has still not answered. Does his commission envisage lone parents undergoing a 10-hour interview?

James Clappison: I think that we are going round in circles. The question is whether two years is sufficient time to prepare under a regime that is subject to sanctions. If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer, I look forward to an answer from the Minister.

Paul Rowen: We have started an important debate about conditionality within a new system of work-related activity. As has been said, we have already seen a change of Government policy, in that a lone parent will now have to engage in work-related activity when their child reaches the lower age of 12. That policy has been operating for only a short time and it is still bedding in, but we now have a Government proposal to lower the age to three. Taking on board the fact that the change is new, we believe that support for lone parents getting back into work is not fully in place, and that must be addressed. Indeed, we have heard of examples of people who have been given, in our view, quite inappropriate advice about what they can and cannot do in terms of getting back to work. There are still barriers to work for lone parentschild care, transport and facilities barriers. For example, there is only one child care place for every 200 children over 11, yet the Government are already moving the provision from the age of 12 to three, and the way in which to deal with a parent with older children has not been addressed. Serious issues must be addressed before the change can be made.
We suggest in amendment 44 that the child should be seven rather than five before conditionality beds in, and we would like a phased movement rather than the Governments complete change because that would give the parent time to organise and prepare themselves for work as the child starts school. We need some answers about this aspect, which deals with young children and lone parents. In particular, I should like from the Minister a commitmentthe Child Poverty Action Group has asked for it, toothat parents will be protected from any financial sanctions that worsen the severity of child poverty, and that any non-financial sanctions that might be imposed as a result of the regime will not create additional expenditure for the parent. If parents are required to attend a particular locality for a certain number of hours, will the costs of travel and child care be paid for?
We also want assurances that decisions on child care will rest fully and firmly with the parent and that under no circumstances will a direction be given to them that they have to take a particular form of child care. We want an assurance that lone parents and partners in educationI had a case relating to this a couple of weeks agowill not be required to cease their education, which in turn will be recognised as a work-related activity. The case I had involved a single parent who was looking after two young children and had gone to university. He received a student loan, but that was classed as income and affected his entitlement to housing benefit, so he had to drop out of the course because he could not afford to pay his rent and university fees. Such real issues affect lone parents, and if we are going to apply stricter conditionality at a much lower age, we need to address the availability of child care, for example. It would be interesting to hear what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that child care for older children will be improved under the current regime. It appears that the Government are moving far too quickly, and that they do not have the support in place to enable this group to get back into work, which is, I am sure, what we all want.

Tony McNulty: We have already touched on some of these topics, including during our discussion of the first set of amendments. It is important to start by saying that no one has a monopoly on concern for child poverty, as the hon. Member for Rochdale implies. Everyone can quote the Child Poverty Action Group. The surest way to help children out of poverty is to support more parents into paid work that enables parents to manage the careful balance between employment and family lifethat must be absolutely right. The hon. Member for Hertsmere will know that Professor Gregg suggested conditionality from the age of one.
The hon. Member for Rochdale is confused, in part, when he suggests that there is a time dimension to being prepared for work. We have had what I consider to be a rather facile debate about two years versus one year versus three years versus four years. Let us be clear that work-related activity is about the health and well-beingintellectually, morally, spiritually and every other wayof the individual while there are barriers, including the delight of childbirth, to getting back into work. That is the centre of what Gregg was saying, and to describe it as a mechanistic process in which one can turn a tap on and off and say that six months will do, as though it were an elongated version of a makeover or make-up session, is nonsense. This is about not preening someone to get back into the labour market, but providing all that we can for an end goal that all the child poverty lobby agrees is desirable: to get people who want to do so back into work.
The hon. Gentleman again draws a picture of doom and gloomRochdale doom and gloom not Hertsmeres; Hertsmere is happierabout the notion of conditionality as though it were oppressive, suppressive and driving down on lone parents for some malign intent, as yet not fully defined, but nothing could be further from the case. It is about trying to help and support people get back into work at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Gentlemanfor Hertsmere this time, not Rochdaleis seriously suggesting that we need to leave people alone and not trouble them until their children are five, and then between five and seven we should have a magical process to get them back to work-readiness and back into work. That is, at one level, utterly neglectful. We need to start working with lone parents at the earliest opportunitywith them, I emphasisewith all that that entails on removing barriers, to get them ready for, and ultimately involved in, work-related activity, and then to get them back into the labour market. Again, quite deliberately, work-related activity is drawn at its widest. We cannot have a Bill that purports to offer as much personalised and flexible support as possible and then get lost in an anally retentive fixation on lists that define what that flexibility isby definition that is an oxymoron.
Why the age of three? Notwithstanding the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, three is increasinglyit is not yet 100 per cent. there throughout England and Walesthe age at which the state provides full-time child care. The duty on local councils is newish, and the absence of such provision will be taken fully into account when discussing the details of an individuals work-related activity at three.
Saying that the two years do not matter either way, and that five is a lot better, is at least a more measured approach from the hon. Member for Hertsmere. The Leader of the Opposition, as is his perennial wont, dismissed these plans as sick and shameful in his rush to jump on the nearest bandwagonhe is more fixated with bandwagons than the Liberal Democrats used to be, which is a shame. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when he welcomes his soon-to-be-ennobled Front Bencher in the Lords, David Freud, who thinks we are being timid. He would like us to go much further than even we are suggesting, although I do not know whether that was a Freudian slip. It is rather a shame that there is a notion that this is territory in which we should play rather futile politics. There can and should be as wide a consensus as possible.
The age of seven is a nonsense, although I would entertain five a little more, notwithstanding the point about Scotland. Starting to talk to individual lone parents about their journey back into work by time the child is seven should, in the interests of those parents, happen at the earliest opportunity. The closer the child gets to seven and the lone parent to that stage of obligation, I would envisage a slightly stronger focus on the work element of the work-related activities rather than the broader skills and training element.
The amendments are, I hope, probing rather than otherwisecertainly that tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. We take it as read that the hon. Member for Rochdale could not care less about the Bill or the policy framework that we are seeking to adopt. However, I fear if he continues for too much longer, the implication of his comments will be that he could not care less about the people about whom we are talking, and that would be a dangerous road to go down. I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

James Clappison: I shall study the Ministers words carefully because the subject is important. We think that it is reasonable to have a debate about the age at which such requirements are placed on lone parents. We have no problem with the general vision of getting people back to work and of conditionality in appropriate circumstances. The Minister mentioned going further, and we will not be slow to come forward with ideas about how the Government can go further than they are at presentmuch further in some cases. He referred to giving help to parents of children below the age of threehelp with interviews and making suggestions and assistance available. There is no problem with that either.
What is significant about the Governments proposals, however, is the way in which things change at the age of three. Some of the right hon. Gentlemans remarks were fair, but he referred to a mechanistic approach on our part. However, when I look at the Governments proposals, I think mechanistic is rather a good word to use to describe them. I will quote so that the Committee will know exactly the issues at stake as we consider the amendment
Age of youngest child1-2: Conditionality GroupingProgression to Work: Required to attend Work Focused Interviews and agree an action plan. They are not mandated to undertake any activities recorded on the action plan or any other activities, although they will be encouraged to do so on a voluntary basis...3-6: Progression to Work: Required to follow the full progression to Work regime based around Work Focused interviews, action plans, work related activity and the backstop of adviser direction.
We apprehend, since it has not been said to the contrary, that those parents will also be subject to the full rigour of the sanctions regime in the same way as others in the sane conditionality group.
We need to reflect on these important matters and to think carefully about the question of age and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 2, page 4, line 26, at end insert
unless the person is caring for another person for 35 hours or more per week..

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 58, in clause 7, page 13, line 16, at end insert
(3A) In exercising the powers contained in subsections (1) to (3) the Secretary of State shall not require people caring for at least 35 hours per week who are receiving income support to claim jobseekers allowance..
Amendment 59, in clause 8, page 14, line 11, at end insert including any caring responsibilities..
New clause 3Review of carers benefits
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of the benefits to which carers are entitled, reporting to Parliament on the outcome of this review no later than six months after the Welfare Reform Bill receives Royal Assent.
(2) The Secretary of State must involve carers in this review and must publish a report on the findings of the review..

Paul Rowen: Notwithstanding the Ministers comments and my partys general views on the Bill, the Government are seeking to introduce major changes in legislation. We will do two things. We will put forward alternative policies and seek to amend what the Conservative Opposition have described as mechanistic and what we would describe as half-baked and ill thought-out.
Amendments 58 and 59 and new clause 3 are probing amendments that deal with issues associated with carers and the carers allowance. Amendment 57, which relates to clause 2, removes the requirement to engage in workplace activity for a person who is caring for another person for 35 hours or more per week. The current lack of provision for carers does not sit well with the research that the Department has carried out, including the Gregg report. Some 230,000 people satisfy the criteria for carers allowancethat is, they are caring for someone for at least 35 hours a week and currently receive income support or income-based JSA. We would welcome clarification that people in that category will not be required to undertake work-focused activity. That is consistent with what was set out in Paul Greggs report, and which was confirmed in the White Paper: that people providing substantial care should be in the no-conditionality group.
There are several other related issues, such as the current inadequacy of the carers allowance, which is the lowest of all the income replacement benefits at £50.55 a week. The earnings limit of £95 a week prevents many carers from progressing into paid work, and the rule banning more than 21 hours of study per week traps carers on benefits and in low-status jobs. The allowance cannot be paid alongside a state pension, so it leaves many older carers with no recognition of their caring role or the assistance that they need with the costs of caring. I am aware that the Government have promised to overhaul the carers benefit, but that seems to have been completely overlooked in the Bill. That is a disappointment. The Government are committed to ensuring by 2018 that no carer is forced into financial hardship by virtue of their caring role, as set out in the national carers strategy, Carers at the Heart of the 21st century: families and communities, which was published in June last year.
The Work and Pensions Committee called in August last year for an overhaul of carers benefits and set out a prescription for reform that would tackle many of the problems I have just outlined. This clause proposes that people receiving income support, income-based JSA or income-based ESA will not be required to undertake work-related activity, as specified in these regulations. I hope that the Minister can give us that clarification, as well as saying why no opportunity has been taken in the Bill to deal with some of the inequalities relating to carers allowance.
Amendment 58 amends clause 7 and, again, ensures that in exercising the powers the Secretary of State will not require people to take part who are caring for at least 35 hours and are receiving income support. This is a probing amendment because we want to hear a commitment from the Government that they will not move carers off income support until there are clear and detailed plans setting out how the benefits system will be reformed over the long term. There is a need for further analysis of the ESA. The clause provides for the abolition of income support.
Carers UK welcomed the commitment in the White Paper, Raising expectations and increasing support, that carers receiving income support will not be moved off it until there is a clear and detailed plan setting out the long-term reform of the benefits system. The proposal in the Green Paper, No one written off, to move them to a modified version of jobseekers allowance caused distress and anger among carers, who saw it as insulting to receive a benefit that implied that they were not working already. Carers UK would welcome a reiteration of the Governments commitment. When will we get further details of the clear and detailed plan?
Amendment 59 would add the instruction including any caring responsibilities. Again, we want a commitment from the Government that the changes in the Bill will not affect the commitments that have been made to this very vulnerable group until we have the long-term changes. That is also the purpose of new clause 3, which includes a requirement on the Secretary of State to
undertake a review of the benefits to which carers are entitled, reporting to Parliament on the outcome of this review no later than six months after the Welfare Reform Bill receives Royal Assent.
We want carers to be involved in that review and the findings to be published.
Given the Governments previous commitments to carers, we believe that the promise of a review within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent will provide reassurance on the needs of carers. They undergo discrimination at the moment and the caring duties that they carry out are worth millions of pounds each year. Before some of the changes in the Bill are introduced for carers, there should be a full review. I hope for and look forward to the Ministers commitment to reaffirming and protecting the interests of carers, particularly in relation to the clause.

Tony McNulty: No one doubts that these are important matters. As was said earlier, the broader notion that we should move to a simplification of the benefits system and eventually to a single working-age benefit is the right sentiment. However, perhaps we got carried away in our enthusiasm for that journey when we insisted in the Green Paper that carers would all transfer to jobseekers allowance. I was happy to work with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, to review that aspect of the Green Paper. [Interruption.] I am not allowed to say Jonathan.
For the reasons suggested by many carers organisations, we have set aside the notion that all carers should be transferred from IS to ESA. One reason for that was that doing so would have suggested to carers that they do not already have a job. In many instances, caring for their family is very much a full-time job. We were very clear in the White Papermuch read out by the hon. Member for Rochdaleat least in spirit, that we would not be migrating, for want of a better phrase, carers on IS to JSA.
So what are we left with? We are left with the hon. Gentleman asking me to confirm the content of the White Paper, which, of course, I am very happy to do. We made very clear in the White Paper, and in our response to Professor Gregg, that we accepted his suggestion that anybody involved in full-time caring, above the 35 hours that the hon. Gentleman suggests in his amendments, should not be subject to conditionality at all. That is the import of both amendments 57 and 58, and given that we have said that as recently as in the White Paper, I can confirm that full-time carers will not be subject to conditionality. I hope that deals with amendments 57, 58 and 59.
New clause 3, which calls for a review of carers benefits, is, again, what was spelled out in the White Paper. I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he said almost word for word what I am implored by officials to read out:
As a result we have amended our proposal
that in the Green Paper
and will not move carers from Income Support until we have
and I think these were the exact words the hon. Gentleman used 
a clear and detailed plan setting out how we will reform the benefits system over the longer term.
That commitment is, and remains, absolute. We are very mindful of the contribution carers make in this countrythat is beyond doubt across all parties.
Much of what the hon. Gentleman suggests about extra areas that need looking at will be encompassed in that study. We may need to take a range of decisions as this work progresses, including moving people to different benefits under transitional arrangements. Many carers, howeveras I am sure the hon. Gentleman knowswant to work; some already receive jobseekers allowance with the carer premium. But the Government do appreciate that caring responsibilities often make it difficult or impossible for carers to consider taking up paid employment, and we have no intention of requiring carers to seek employment or of reducing the level of benefit income they receive.
As the hon. Gentleman also implied, last year we published Carers at the heart of 21st century families and communities. This followed the major review of our national strategy for carers, which was an enormous consultation exercise. He will know that the income taskforce, which was set up to examine the financial support available to carers, focused particularly on carers benefits. Many of the other points that he madeperfectly valid onesregarding some of the criteria for benefits will be the focus of that taskforce, including the interface with that study.
Everyone agrees that benefits for carers should be reformed over the long term. We know also that, working with colleagues in the Department of Health, we need to be far more integrated in our broader approach to carers across government. We accordingly made a commitment to look at the full picture not just in the context of longer term plans for welfare reform, rather than piecemeal changes, but in the broader context of what, from the social care side, we are doing with carers from the health perspective.
There is a new standing committee on carers, which is overseeing the delivery of the overall carers strategy. Much of what we determine in the wider reform of carers benefits will feed into that process. I can therefore absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that his amendments on 35 hours and full-time carers and on the migration of carers from IS to jobseekers allowance, and the broader points that he makes in new clause 3, are covered in the White Paper. I say in the gentlest of terms that, given what I have said, his amendments and the new clause are not required. While I accept the spirit in which he made his case, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. In our view, it was important that those commitments be read into the record. Given that we have got those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 5, line 12, leave out paragraph (e).

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 3, page 10, line 24, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

James Clappison: Amendment 6 refers to a specific point in the context of work-related activity requirements for partners: the work-related activity requirement for partners where a claimant has more than one partnerin other words, where there is a polygamous relationship. Polygamous relationships are recognised elsewhere, in social security legislation and policy, but we would like a bit more detail from the Government about what will happen in this instance.
Subsection 2D(2)(e) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 establishes a regulation-making power for determining, in the case of a claimant in a polygamous marriage, which of the partners is required to undertake work-related activityor, indeed, whether all the partners are. The purpose of this amendment is to ascertain the principles that will lie behind this process, since nothing is said in the notes on clauses about the principles that will operate. On the face of it, it appears that a number of questions have to be answered. For example, in which cases will one, some or all of the partners be required to meet the requirements? If only one or some of the partners are required to meet the work-related activity requirements, how will the decision be made as to which one, or ones? There is no clue in the Bill or elsewhere as to how these decisions will be made. Therefore, we think it a proper use of parliamentary scrutiny to ask the Minister for a bit more detail as to how this will work in practice and what principles will be adopted to determine these issues.
Amendment 14 simply deals with the same issue in a different contextthat is, in respect of a joint claim for jobseekers allowance. That raises the question of who are to be regarded as joint claimants and whether there is a joint claim for jobseekers allowance. Again, how will that be determined? Which of the partners will be part of the claim, and which will not?

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman suggests, these are complex and sensitive matters that have already been recognised for some time in the body of social security legislation. This part of the Bill merely seeks to reflect that which already exists in recognition of this particular condition. I accept what he says, but we need to explorenot in the Bill but in regulationprecisely how to deal with the matters that he brings up. If the amendments are passed, we will lose the ability to do that.
Again, without wishing to sound like a broken record, we feel that this is more properly done in regulation rather than in the Bill, not least for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Secondly, we have to do so, since this recognition already exists in the body of social security legislation. Thirdly, officials can and should come forward, sooner rather than later, with the regulations and what they look like, to explain the perfectly valid points the hon. Gentleman makes. Although I know that my response to him is sadly lackingin a sense, he is saying let us wait and see what the substance of the regulations isin the spirit of a wonderful morning, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

James Clappison: How can I respond to such a suggestion? I think that the best response is to say that we will remain tantalised by how those decisions will be made, and we hope that there will be harmony when they are made in certain domestic circumstances, but we shall wait and see. It seems that we shall also have to wait until we see more of the regulations to know exactly what the principles of the measures will be and how they will work. In order to make progress, and in the spirit of these being probing amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 2, page 5, line 28, at end insert
(j) but may not prescribe accessing of healthcare provision, taking of medication or accessing psychological therapies as a relevant requirement..
The measure relates to the conditions that may be attached to a person in order for them to receive work-related benefits, and the amendment would make a clear commitment that a personal adviser may not prescribe that someone should access a certain type of health care, medication or psychological therapy as a requirement of receiving benefit. I appreciate the importance of someone with a drug or alcohol problem or a mental illness receiving support and help, and I understand that it might be necessary for that person to deal with that problem or illness in order to take part in full-time work. Indeed, I think it vital that such people be encouraged to take that route. The evidence from the DWPs voluntary programme has shown that when people are encouraged to go on a drug rehabilitation programme, they make progress and move into the world of work, whereas there is no evidence whatever that prescribing a certain form of treatment will be successful.
In the evidence sessions, we heard that nearly 250,000 people who currently receive benefits have drug and alcohol problems. We also heard that the health care budget would have to be increased by 50 per cent. if the Governments target of ensuring that everyone is involved in the programme is to be achieved, but that is not going to happen. We do not believe that a move from encouraging people to seek treatment, as a means of getting them back into work, to making treatment compulsory is the right way forward. We believe that the best way forward is for the Government to continue what they are doing with the voluntary scheme, and to encourage and develop such programmes, which are the best way of getting people back into the work market.
We also have great concerns about who will undertake the direction. Will it be the personal adviser? If so, what additional training will they get? No qualifications are stipulated as being required for JCP advisers, and there is no qualification to say that a person is experienced at analysing, assessing and stipulating what course of treatment people who present themselves for interview should undertake. In our view, that kind of decision is best left to health care professionals.
Again, the Bill runs directly contrary to the recently published NHS constitution, which makes it clear that treatment shall not be prescribed to a patient, yet the Government are saying that it will be possible for a personal adviser to prescribe a course of treatment as a condition of benefit. That is totally contrary to the NHS constitution, and it is totally inappropriate. As I said, all the evidence is that voluntary programmes in which people readily engage are the ones that are likely to be successful.
On psychological therapies, how will a JCP adviser be able to carry out a proper assessment of a person who has a fluctuating mental illness? Earlier, we discussed the problems that may come about if a fluctuating illness means that a person is unable to attend for an interview. If the illness is so unstable and so fluctuating, what qualifications will the adviser have to make such decisions?
The clause is dangerous, and we do not believe that it is the right way to go about getting people back into work. As we said earlier, we would much prefer to see greater emphasis on developing programmes that will get people back into work. We have real concerns about how the measure may be interpreted, and we do not believe that this route will result in people with a drug or alcohol problem or a mental illness getting back to work. Much better routes could be taken, and we are disappointed with the formulation of the clause.

Tony McNulty: Interesting speech, but wrong clause! In the hon. Gentlemans enthusiasm and rush to download every hackneyed clichÃ(c) that he possibly could while discussing his misinterpretation of our policies in clause 9 on drug misuse, he has tagged his concerns on to clause 2 and made the speech anyway. On one level, that is fine, but the downside is that we will have to hear it all again when we get to clause 9, which is a matter of regret.
Let me answer clearly the substance of what the hon. Gentleman said in the context of clause 2: we will never mandate any parent into any health intervention that is delivered by a health professional, including psychological therapies and the taking of medication, except if it is required as part of a drug rehabilitation programme, which is dealt with in clause 9.
On clause 2, in the context of work-related activity, income support claimants and partners of claimants, and in the context of the substance of the wording of the amendment, which states
may not prescribe accessing of healthcare provision, taking of medication or accessing psychological therapies as a relevant requirement,
I repeat, to allay the hon. Gentlemans fears, that we will never mandate any parent into any health intervention such as those described.
Given right place, wrong time, or wrong place, right timeor wrong clauseI urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, notwithstanding the substance of his comments.

Paul Rowen: I have listened to what the Minister said. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 5, line 49, at end insert
, including activity which enables the person to improve his or her skills for work..
The amendment concerns the definition of work-related activity, which the Bill defines as
an activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so.
There is common ground between us on the idea that the acquisition of skills makes it more likely that a person will obtain or remain in work, and I apprehend that the Governments thinking is that the acquisition of skills will play an important part in work-related activity. However, we thought this was an opportunity to hear more about the Governments plans and thinking, and to give them a gentle steer in our direction. We know that the issue is dealt with in the White Paper, and we will make common ground on it, but we would like to hear more detail and, particularly, what provision there will be for the assessment and reskilling of existing incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance claimants.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: the provision will include improving and identifying skills need and taking steps to improve such skills. We have, as I have indicated throughout the morning, drawn the definition of work-related activity as broadly as possiblequite deliberately, because different individuals will be at different stages on an array of different journeys on their way back to work. I should have thought that, for all concerned, improving and identifying skills need would be a central work-related activity, and as I tried to imply earlier, all the more important the closer the person got to the end of that journey back to work. The early stages of such a process, however, may include stabilising their housing situation; attending a motivation and confidence-building coursemuch pooh-poohed by many, but for people who are remote from the labour market, developing such self-esteem and confidence-building skills is important; starting to use the services of a childrens centre and all that that entails; or attending appropriate training, having discussed what was necessary with the personal adviser. So, the provision is quite deliberately drawn as broadly as possible.
On thosewhen we finally get to themin the ESA work group, rather than in the support group, there will be a range of activities and help and support. Again, we have drawn the provision broadly so that we can make it as personalised as possible. If that sounds vague, it is meant to, because we really want individualised and personalised activity and support for each individual. I know that I sound a bit like a broken record.
I agree with the thrust of the amendment. In this case, the hon. Gentleman is probably three-quarters right rather than half right, but for the reasons suggested, there is no need for the amendment. We do not want to fall down that slippery slope of undue specificity. Although I embrace the spirit of the amendment, I ask that it be withdrawn as otiose.

James Clappison: Heaven forbid that we should be otiose, but we make common ground on this issue by wanting a wide reach for work-related activity, both in its forms and in the people whom it reaches. We are concerned that the provision should have as much effect in practice as possible and reach as many people as possible. Skills are an important part of that, but in light of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 6, line 12, leave out in prescribed circumstances.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 6, line 29, after which, insert
the person is willing to undertake and which.
Amendment 92, in clause 2, page 6, line 30, at end insert
( ) an action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan..
Amendment 84, in clause 2, page 6, line 31, leave out may and insert shall.
Amendment 85, in clause 2, page 6, line 32, after first the, insert reasonable.
Amendment 86, in clause 2, page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 93, in schedule 1, page 54, line 45, at end insert
An action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan..

James Clappison: Very briefly, this is a probing amendment. Subsection (2)(e) of the proposed new section requires an action plan to be prepared by a person, subject to requirements. It must be prepared by the Secretary of State in prescribed circumstances. We simply want to know more about what those prescribed circumstances are, and as such, this is a probing amendment seeking more detail. We note the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East; no doubt the Minister will want to explain how they fit into the scheme of the Bill. Amendments 84, 85 and 86 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale. If I may introduce a new word for the Committee, we have some concern about the automaticity of the provision that the hon. Gentleman is recommendingthat there will always be a right to reconsideration of a report. We have some concerns, but we look forward to hearing more details from the Minister.

John Mason: I wish to speak to amendments 91, 92 and 93, on the question of action plans. If we are going to have action plans there surely needs to be agreement as to what is in them. My reading of the Bill at the momentand I seek reassurance from the Ministeris that the adviser, solely, would be able to lay down the terms of what is in the action plans. That may not be the intention but it is my reading of it. Elsewhere in the Bill we have talked about a right of control and wanting people to be involved in their own progress. It would seem that some of these measures would in fact take away from that, and the persons real involvement and ownership would be less.
We obviously need to build confidence in peoplegoing back to people with mental health issues and so on. I wonder whether imposing such an action plan, completely from outside, is the right way to go ahead. It appears that both the DWP and private contractors are able to issue mandatory directions. There is no detail in the Bill about how such an agreement between an adviser and a claimant would be reached, and if there is dispute over what is in these action plans, how that would be taken forwardother than when there is a sanction, there would then be an appeal.

Paul Rowen: We want to look at the parts that deal with the actual sanctions, and the sanctions that may be taken if someone who is on income supportclaimants, or partners of claimantsdoes not undertake the prescribed activities. We are seeking to introduce three small amendments84, 85 and 86. We want to replace the word may with shall. We believe it is an important safeguard. We wish also to insert the word reasonable. I know we are not defining what we mean by reasonablethat presumably will be developed by case lawbut we think it is important that a reasonable sanction should be imposed. The third change we wish to make is to leave out subsection (6)(a) of proposed new section 2D, which refers to the reduction, and how it is to be calculated by reference to such an amount as may be prescribed. That does not actually explain what is happening. They are small amendments but in terms of sanctions, they tighten up what is being proposed.

Tony McNulty: Amendments 11, 84, 85, 86, 91, 92 and 93 are all important in their own terms.

James Clappison: On the importance in their own terms, is the Minister a little intrigued by the Liberal Democrats approach, which seems to be turning the clause around to arrive back in exactly the same position it was in in the first place? Under the Liberal Democrats amendments there is a mandatory provisiona shall provision, that there should be a reconsideration of an action plan at the reasonable request

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four oclock.